An additional 60 trains of coal could roll through the Northwest rail network every day headed across the Pacific if forecasts are correct. Two manufacturing firms signed deals last week to build 20 new barges to increase export capacity, a sign of optimism from coal exporter Ambre Energy that port redevelopment proposals will gain approval.
Terminal developers are eying the lucrative Asian market, hungry for energy coal from Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin to fuel its economic engine. For example, Australian based Ambre Energy is involved in two proposals to expand the Pacific Northwest port. Exports are constricted because of limited port capacity.
An expansion won't come easy though, considering the chorus of critics citing environmental, traffic, human health and community concerns with coal shipping, export and even coal use. But in these tight economic times, coal shipping expansion remains popular with the general public, according to one recent survey.
An interim Montana legislative committee became the latest to weigh in on whether the US Army Corps of Engineers should expand an environmental review for Pacific Northwest port projects with a mixed response to the idea, which would slow redevelopment.
The Sierra Club is leading an effort called the Beyond Coal campaign that includes stopping coal exports. Among the concerns cited: the global impacts of coal fired power plants, the impact of coal dust on human health, and the increase in freight rail traffic that can snarl traffic in local communities.
The Sierra Club, affiliates of the Billings, Montana based Northern Plains Resource Council, and local governments like Missoula, Mont. are among those asking the US Army Corps of Engineers to expand its environmental reviews beyond just the port terminals projects and look at broader environmental areas and issues.
Letters from interested parties have become the weather vane revealing which way the winds of legislative oversight are blowing. The railroad BNSF's chairman & CEO Mr Matthew Rose recently wrote a letter to Washington Governor Ms Christine Gregoire to address concerns about the port projects. The Energy and Telecommunications Interim Committee of the Montana Legislature sent a letter of it's own to the Corporation's office in Portland, Oregon also opposing an expanded environmental review.
During a recent hearing, the panel heard from proponents, opponents and informational witnesses on the issue before voting on whether to send a letter to the Corps.
All of this back and forth follows a dramatic forecast released in a report by the Western Organization of Resource Councils called Heavy Traffic Ahead.
Mr Terry Whiteside, a transportation consultant and co author of the report, said that "Make no mistake about it. This is a huge, huge increase in volume like we've never seen before in this part of the world."
Mr Whiteside projects an additional 27 to 63 trains per day could be the result of increased coal exports to Asia. He calculated that figure based on the export projections of 75 million tons of coal per day by 2017; up to 170 million tons of coal per day by 2022.
Ms Suann Lundberg spokeswoman in Fort Worth said that "The problem with the study is that it wrongfully assumes that BNSF would originate 100% of the Powder River Basin coal. That's just not logical. The Powder River Basin is accessed by both the Union Pacific and the BNSF on what we call the joint line. 50% of it moves on Union Pacific and 50 percent of it moves on BNSF."
Ms Lundberg says BNSF was not contacted by the authors of the study. She adds the railroad would only have access to one of the proposed six port terminals and the others are either located on other railroads or served jointly among railroads.
Mr Whiteside says he did not contact the railroads, instead he looked at the empirical data and forced it back on the system. He adds the study wasn’t designed to be a debate about what the railroad wants.
Source - Transportation Nation
(www.coalguru.com)
Logistic/Thermal Coal/North America
